Juvenile justice reform in the United States has long struggled with balancing accountability, public safety, and the rehabilitative needs of youth. Decades of research reveal persistent racial and ethnic disparities in how young people experience the justice system. Across states and municipalities, youth of color—particularly Black and Hispanic adolescents—are disproportionately referred to police, detained, and adjudicated, often for the same behaviors that result in less severe responses for their white peers.¹

In Jefferson City and Cole County, Missouri, these disparities became a pressing local concern during the early 2010s. Data revealed that although African American youth comprised roughly 12 percent of the county’s population, they represented over 50 percent of all juvenile referrals. This discrepancy raised urgent questions about fairness, equity, and the long-term consequences of introducing young people to formal justice processes prematurely.²

At the time, local police, schools, and juvenile authorities operated largely in silos, which is not uncommon. Protocols were fragmented, and status offenses—truancy, runaways, minor school-based incidents—often led to unnecessary detention. The community lacked an organized, preventive mechanism to address low-level juvenile offenses before they escalated into court involvement.

Recognizing the severity of this problem, a coalition of local leaders formed the Disproportionate Minority Committee (DMC), a partnership among police, juvenile courts, schools, and community organizations. This committee was created with the mission to understand the root causes of disproportionality and to explore evidence-based alternatives to traditional juvenile justice processing.

The resulting initiative, later named the Keystone Early Intervention Youth Program, emerged as a locally designed, collaborative diversion model aimed at reducing racial disparities and keeping first-time, low-level offenders out of the juvenile justice system.

A Historical Perspective: Evolution of Juvenile Justice and Diversion

The juvenile justice system in the United States was founded in 1899 with the establishment of the first juvenile court in Cook County, Illinois.³ This innovation reflected a progressive belief that children were developmentally distinct from adults and should be treated with compassion and rehabilitation rather than strict punishment. Early reformers sought to create systems where judges acted as social workers, offering guidance rather than imposing harsh sentences.

Throughout the early 20th century, juvenile courts spread rapidly across the United States, emphasizing individualized treatment and community-based supervision. However, by the mid-20th century, growing concerns over youth crime, coupled with public demand for accountability, shifted the system toward more punitive approaches. The “tough on crime” policies of the 1980s and 1990s accelerated this trend, leading to the widespread incarceration of young people, often for nonviolent offenses.

During this period, researchers and policymakers noticed troubling racial disparities. Reports highlighted that youth of color were far more likely to be arrested, detained, and transferred to adult court than were white youth. These findings spurred the introduction of federal initiatives such as the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, which included provisions to address disproportionate minority contact.⁴

Over time, diversion programs emerged as an alternative approach. Rather than pushing youth through formal court proceedings, diversion allowed first-time or low-level offenders to complete community service, counseling, or educational programs. Successful completion meant avoiding a juvenile record. Studies in the 1990s and 2000s consistently found that diversion reduced recidivism and improved social outcomes compared to detention.⁵

Missouri played a role in these reform movements. The state adopted elements of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), focusing on reducing unnecessary detention and promoting community-based supervision.⁶ While these efforts made progress statewide, smaller jurisdictions like Cole County struggled to translate broad principles into actionable programs—especially those addressing racial disparities in referrals.

Understanding Disproportionality in Cole County

The turning point came in 2014 when the Office of State Courts Administrator began analyzing juvenile referral data in Cole County. The results were stark:

• Relative Rate Index (RRI): African American youth were over seven times more likely than white youth to be referred to juvenile authorities.
• School-Based Referrals: A disproportionate share of referrals originated from school incidents, including fights, disruptive behavior, and truancy.
• Status Offenses: Runaways and curfew violations frequently resulted in detention, even for first-time offenders.

Officers and educators in Cole County acknowledged that, while most juvenile referrals stemmed from genuine behavioral concerns, protocols lacked flexibility. For instance, police officers responding to runaway reports had no mechanism other than detention, regardless of context or the need for social services. Similarly, schools often referred students to juvenile authorities for behavior that could have been addressed through internal interventions or counseling.

These findings highlighted systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. Research on racial disparities in juvenile justice points to several contributing factors:⁷

1. Implicit Bias: Studies show that unconscious biases can influence decision-making at multiple points—from initial police contact to school discipline to court adjudication.
2. Zero-Tolerance Policies: The rise of zero-tolerance discipline in schools during the 1990s disproportionately impacted minority youth, leading to more suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to juvenile authorities.
3. Socioeconomic Factors: Youth from disadvantaged backgrounds often lack access to support services, increasing their likelihood of justice system involvement.
4. Structural Inequities: Limited diversion options meant that police’s only tool for certain behaviors was formal referral, disproportionately affecting youth of color.

The DMC recognized that without systemic reform, these disparities would persist. The committee began exploring diversion as a potential solution, aiming to replicate successful models while tailoring them to Jefferson City’s unique context.

Formation of the DMC: A Community Comes Together

In 2012, before the data fully exposed the severity of disproportionality in Cole County, a small but committed group of stakeholders recognized that the juvenile justice system was failing to serve every child equally. Police saw firsthand how detention disrupted education and family stability. Juvenile officers struggled with case overloads that stemmed from low-level offenses better suited for social services than formal court processing. Educators worried that routine school discipline too often escalated into life-altering justice involvement.

Recognizing these shared concerns, these community leaders formed the DMC. Its founding members included representatives from the following institutions and groups:

• Jefferson City Police Department
• Michael Prenger Family Center (juvenile detention facility)
• Cole County Juvenile Office
• Jefferson City Public Schools
• Boys and Girls Club of Jefferson City
• Office of State Courts Administrator

Early meetings were informal, often held in borrowed community rooms or school conference centers. The discussions were candid and, at times, uncomfortable. Stakeholders brought different perspectives: police emphasized public safety and officer discretion; educators spoke about disruptive behavior affecting classrooms; juvenile authorities focused on due process and rehabilitation.

Despite these differences, a common belief emerged: the existing system wasn’t working. Youth of color were disproportionately funneled into detention for behaviors that could have been addressed through early intervention. Families felt alienated from both schools and the police, eroding community trust.

The DMC’s early work focused on building mutual understanding and establishing trust among its members. Facilitated sessions explored data on racial disparities and reviewed local case studies where detention failed to prevent future offenses. Through these conversations, stakeholders realized that fragmented protocols—rather than individual misconduct—were perpetuating inequities.

One officer recalled, “We were doing our jobs the way policies instructed us to. But when we stepped back and looked at the numbers, it was clear something was broken. We had to admit we were part of the problem before we could be part of the solution.”⁸

Learning from National Models: A Research-Driven Approach

As the DMC matured, its members sought to learn from other jurisdictions that had successfully implemented diversion programs. The committee conducted an extensive review of models across the United States, attending conferences, hosting webinars, and visiting replication sites. Four programs stood out as particularly relevant: Philadelphia’s Police School Diversion Program (Pennsylvania), Florida’s Civil Citation Program, Nebraska’s Project Resource, and Multnomah County’s Police Assisted Diversion Program (Oregon).

Philadelphia’s Police School Diversion Program

Launched in 2014, Philadelphia’s initiative transformed the city’s approach to school-based offenses. Traditionally, police arrested students for first-time, low-level misdemeanors committed on school grounds. Recognizing the long-term harm of arrest records, the police department partnered with schools and social service providers to create a diversion option.

Under the program, officers issue a diversion referral instead of making an arrest. Students and families are connected to counseling, mentoring, and educational support services. Successful completion results in no arrest record, allowing youth to remain in school without formal justice system involvement.

Within three years, Philadelphia saw an over 65 percent reduction in school-based arrests while maintaining school safety. Recidivism rates dropped, and school attendance improved among diverted youth.⁹ The program demonstrated that early, nonpunitive interventions could improve outcomes without sacrificing accountability.

Florida’s Civil Citation Program

Florida pioneered the use of civil citations as a police tool to handle minor offenses. When officers encounter a qualifying incident—such as petty theft, misdemeanor assault, or disorderly conduct—they can issue a citation rather than making an arrest.

Youth receiving a citation must complete community service; attend counseling sessions; and, in some cases, participate in restorative justice activities. If these requirements are completed successfully, no arrest record is created. This program gained widespread attention for its effectiveness:

• Civil citation programs have reduced juvenile arrests by over 40 percent in participating counties.
• Youths who complete the program have significantly lower recidivism rates compared to those who were formally processed.
• Police agencies report improved relationships with community members, particularly in minority neighborhoods where mistrust of police was historically high.¹⁰

Nebraska’s Project Restore

Project Restore in Lincoln, Nebraska, offered another model, grounded in restorative justice principles. The program facilitates mediated meetings between youth offenders, victims, and community representatives. The goal is to foster accountability and repair harm, rather than impose punitive sanctions.

Outcomes are impressive: The program has an over 93 percent completion rate and has made measurable improvements in youth empathy and conflict resolution skills.¹¹ Many participants avoid reoffending, and victims report high satisfaction with the restorative process.

Project Restore highlights the value of face-to-face accountability and community reintegration, offering lessons on how diversion can heal relationships rather than sever them.

Multnomah County’s Police Assisted Diversion (LEAD)

Although primarily focused on adults, Multnomah County, Oregon’s Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program demonstrates how harm reduction and trauma-informed policing could redirect individuals toward treatment instead of incarceration. Youth-focused adaptations of LEAD showed potential in addressing underlying causes of delinquency, such as substance use, unstable housing, and unmet mental health needs.¹²

Key Takeaways from Research

From these models, several principles emerged as essential for any successful diversion program:

1. Early Intervention: Diversion should occur at the first point of contact to prevent escalation into formal justice involvement.
2. Police Discretion: Officers must be trained and empowered to make diversion decisions confidently and fairly.
3. Collaborative Partnerships: Schools, police, courts, and community organizations must work together seamlessly.
4. Individualized Services: Programs must address each youth’s unique needs, whether academic, emotional, or social.
5. Data-Driven Evaluation: Continuous tracking of outcomes is critical for demonstrating effectiveness and securing long-term funding.

Designing the Keystone Early Intervention Youth Program

Armed with these insights, the DMC began drafting a blueprint for a Jefferson City–based diversion initiative. Brainstorming sessions produced a guiding vision:

• Target Population: The initiative would focus on youths aged 11–14 committing low-level, first-time offenses (e.g., petty theft, school fights, disorderly conduct).
• Referral Process: Police officers and school administrators would refer eligible youth to the program instead of initiating court proceedings.
• Assessment and Services: Each participant would undergo a needs assessment to guide tailored interventions, including
  • academic tutoring,
  • mentoring,
  • trauma-informed counseling,
  • social-emotional skill-building workshops, and
  • community service projects.
• Completion and Record Clearance: Upon successful completion of the program, no formal charge or juvenile record would be created.

To host the program, the committee partnered with the Boys and Girls Club of Jefferson City, leveraging its existing infrastructure and youth development expertise. The Michael W. Prenger Family Center provided intake assessment and case management support.

Securing Funding and Overcoming Early Barriers

In December 2017, the DMC applied for a grant from the Missouri Department of Public Safety’s Title II Formula Program. After months of deliberation and revisions, the application was approved in March 2018, securing nearly $388,000 to fund the program for three years. The grant supported the following elements:

• Staffing for program coordinators and mentors
• Trauma-informed training for service providers and police
• Development of data-tracking systems
• Community outreach and stakeholder engagement initiatives

However, challenges emerged almost immediately. Leadership turnover in the police department slowed decision-making, and adapting the Boys and Girls Club’s traditional model to fit diversion needs required significant organizational changes. Communication gaps between agencies hindered early implementation.

Despite these hurdles, the Keystone Early Intervention Youth Program officially launched in late 2018. It marked the first time Jefferson City had a dedicated, structured alternative to juvenile court processing for first-time offenders.

Early Implementation Challenges: Lessons in Adaptation

Launching the Keystone Early Intervention Youth Program was a milestone achievement for Jefferson City and Cole County, but the path to operational success was anything but smooth. The first year exposed several critical challenges that tested the resilience and commitment of all stakeholders involved.

Leadership Turnover

One of the earliest and most significant setbacks came from leadership changes within the Jefferson City Police Department. The department’s initial project lead, who had been a driving force in designing and advocating for Keystone, took a police chief position in another state just months after funding was approved. The transition of responsibilities created uncertainty and slowed coordination among partner agencies.

Without a dedicated liaison inside the police department, frontline officers were slower to adopt the new diversion protocols. Many remained unfamiliar with the eligibility criteria or were hesitant to use discretion without clear guidance. As one juvenile officer recalled, “We had this great new tool, but no one was quite sure how to use it properly. It took time to rebuild that bridge.”¹³

Organizational Adjustments at the Boys and Girls Club

The Boys and Girls Club, while enthusiastic about hosting the program, had to adapt its operations significantly to meet diversion needs. Traditionally focused on after-school activities and enrichment programs, the club needed to develop structured case management processes, trauma-informed counseling capabilities, and coordination mechanisms with police and juvenile services. This required new staff training, scheduling changes, and the reallocation of space and resources. Initially, these adjustments stretched the organization’s capacity, delaying full program rollout.

Communication Gaps

Successful diversion depends on seamless information sharing among police, schools, service providers, and juvenile authorities. Early on, communication channels were fragmented. Referral paperwork was sometimes incomplete or delayed, making it difficult to track youth progress. Juvenile authorities reported inconsistent follow-up data from service providers, limiting their ability to assess outcomes.

These gaps occasionally resulted in duplicated efforts or missed opportunities to intervene early. For example, one youth who completed community service through Keystone was still mistakenly scheduled for a court appearance due to clerical errors—a clear sign that better system integration was needed.

Cultural Shifts in Policing and Schools

Perhaps the most challenging barrier was changing long-standing practices and mindsets. Police officers accustomed to formal referrals had to learn to trust diversion as a legitimate, effective response. Similarly, school administrators had to resist the reflex to involve police in routine disciplinary matters.

“Diversion is not simply a program—it’s a shift in philosophy. Police must view it as a legitimate enforcement tool, not a lenient alternative”

Training sessions and joint workshops were introduced to address these cultural shifts. Officers participated in seminars on trauma-informed policing, implicit bias, and the long-term benefits of diversion. Educators learned conflict resolution techniques and alternative disciplinary approaches to avoid criminalizing classroom behavior.

These efforts gradually built understanding and confidence in the Keystone model. Over time, police officers began referring more youth to diversion, while schools increasingly relied on internal interventions before involving juvenile authorities.

Program Impact: Measuring Change in Jefferson City

Despite its early hurdles, Keystone began producing measurable results within its first two years of operation. The program’s impact can be seen across several key areas.

Reduction in Juvenile Referrals

Data collected by the Office of the State Courts Administrator showed a notable decline in juvenile referrals from 2018 to 2020. The RRI for Black youth, while still elevated, dropped from its high of 7.6 in 2014 to 5.9 by 2019. This improvement indicated that fewer minority youth were entering the formal juvenile system—a primary goal of Keystone.

Diversion Completion Rates

Among youth referred to Keystone, completion rates averaged over 80 percent. Successful participants engaged in community service projects, attended mentorship sessions, and demonstrated improved school attendance. Case managers observed significant progress in emotional regulation and conflict resolution skills, particularly among youth with prior histories of school-based incidents.

Family Engagement

Keystone also strengthened family involvement in youth rehabilitation. Parents and guardians participated in family counseling sessions and workshops on communication, parenting skills, and navigating adolescent challenges. Families reported improved relationships with their children and greater confidence in addressing behavioral issues without relying on police intervention.

Community Perception and Trust

As Keystone gained visibility, community trust in the police began to improve. Residents appreciated the shift from punitive measures to supportive interventions. This change aligned with broader conversations in the United States about community policing and restorative justice, positioning Jefferson City as a proactive leader in juvenile justice reform.

Stories of Change: Real-Life Impact

Statistics tell only part of the story. Behind the numbers are young people whose lives took a different path because of Keystone (pseudonyms used for privacy):

• Marcus, a 13-year-old involved in a school fight, was referred to Keystone instead of juvenile court. Through mentorship and anger management sessions, he learned conflict resolution skills and avoided suspension, allowing him to remain in school and focus on academics.
• Jasmine, a first-time runaway, received family counseling and academic support instead of detention. The program helped stabilize her home environment, preventing future runaway incidents.
• Luis, caught shoplifting, completed community service and participated in a restorative justice circle with the store owner. This encounter fostered accountability and forgiveness without establishing a juvenile record.

These individual successes illustrate Keystone’s core mission: to provide second chances, foster personal growth, and break the cycles of justice system involvement before they take root.

Policy Implications: Scaling and Sustaining Diversion

The Keystone experience offers critical lessons for police agencies, policymakers, and community organizations seeking to implement or expand diversion initiatives.

Building Collaborative Coalitions

Effective diversion requires strong partnerships across sectors. Police, schools, juvenile authorities, service providers, and community groups must share a common vision and communicate regularly. Jefferson City’s Racial and Ethnic Disparities Committee, which evolved from the original DMC, provides a model for sustained, collaborative oversight.

Training and Culture Change

Diversion is not simply a program—it’s a shift in philosophy. Police must view it as a legitimate enforcement tool, not a lenient alternative. Ongoing training in trauma-informed practices, implicit bias, and restorative justice approaches is essential to embed diversion into policing culture.

Funding and Resource Allocation

Initial grants are critical to launching diversion programs, but sustainability depends on diversified funding streams. Jefferson City’s success has spurred discussions about incorporating diversion costs into municipal budgets and leveraging state-level juvenile justice funds. Other jurisdictions can explore public-private partnerships and philanthropic support to maintain program operations long-term.

Legislative Support

State policymakers can enhance diversion efforts by enacting laws that encourage or mandate alternatives to detention for low-level juvenile offenses. Such legislation could include standardized civil citation frameworks, funding for community-based services, and accountability measures for reducing disproportionality.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Diversion in Juvenile Justice

As Jefferson City’s Keystone Program continues to evolve, it faces opportunities to expand its reach and deepen its impact:

• Broader Eligibility: Exploring diversion options for repeat, nonviolent offenders who could benefit from intervention rather than formal adjudication
• Enhanced Services: Incorporating vocational training, peer mentorship, and mental health support to address root causes of delinquency
• Data Integration: Developing unified data systems to track youth outcomes, improve case coordination, and strengthen program evaluation
• Replication: Sharing Keystone’s model with neighboring counties and collaborating regionally to standardize diversion practices across Missouri

Notes:

¹ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, The Impact of Juvenile Justice System Involvement on the Health and Well-Being of Youth, Families, and Communities of Color: Proceedings of a Workshop (National Academies Press, 2022).

² Missouri Juvenile Detention Assessment Form (2013).

³Alison S. Burke and Kate McLean, “9.3. History of the Juvenile Justice System,” in Introduction to the U.S. Criminal Justice System, Alison S. Burke et al. (Pressbooks, 2019).

⁴U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “Legislation.”

⁵ Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, National Juvenile Defender Center, National Youth Screening and Assessment Project, and Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps, 2011.

⁶The Annie E. Casey Foundation, “Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI).”

⁷Eleanor Hinton Hoyt et al., Reducing Racial Disparities in Juvenile Detention, Pathways to Juvenile Detention reform, vol. 8 (Baltimore, MD: Annie Casey Foundation, 2001).

⁸DMC Meeting, Jefferson City, Missouri, July 11, 2017.

⁹Dismantling the School to Prison Pipeline: The Philadelphia Police School Diversion Program, Research Roundup, webinar series, Juvenile Justice Research and Reform Lab at Drexel University, February 15, 2023; City of Philadelphia, “DHS Intensive Prevention Services (IPS).”

¹⁰Civil Citation and Similar Prearrest Diversity Program Best Practices Guide (Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 2021).

¹¹Utilizing the RNR Model for Juvenile Offenders in Lancaster County (Lincoln Lancaster County Human Services, 2025).

¹²Multnomah County, “Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD).”

¹³T. Meyer, personal communication, October 2019.

---

Please cite as

Doug Shoemaker, “From Disproportionality to Diversion: Building a Community-Based Juvenile Justice Reform Model,” Police Chief Online, December 17, 2025.